Skaz~SPARTA~ Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 I have a 15inch awesome asus laptop. The thing is, I want something 1080p, from 22" to 32" for: PC gaming on a big screen and ps3 gaming. I was looking online and got a bit dissapointed with the hdtv response times for pc gaming or gaming in general. I rally dont know whats up with that, or if im just been skeptical about little details. Does anyone have any suggestions? It really doesn't need a tv tuner or whatever, but I need at least 2 hdmi connectors, or 1 hdmi and 1 dvi, something like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Batwing~SPARTA~ Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 I can give you my 2c. First of all, not always "bigger is better". I played on a 1080 Monitor 37" for almost 1 year and a half. Reason why I went that way was at that time my PC was also my only media and i got a medium size for my small room (at that time) to watch TV and Media an BDs (all of it via PC). At first I was very excited because every possible game was looking freaking amazing but then I realized something else: Games excellent on very big screen: 1 - Race games, from inside cockpit is like driving your car. Monitor is almost your windshield size 2 - Flight Sim, from inside cockpit, experience is.... WOW!! Games simply Not good for very big screen: Any kind of FPS. Although at first it looks great, soon you ll discover that the experience is "too immersive". To see all threats, especially at the edge of monitor, you have to move your eyes, your head and your neck. Your periheral vision (assuming you have your screen on your desk and you play at a standard distance 2 or 3 feet away) is no more enough to give you an immediate reaction to a threat. I found myself with abit of cervical and neck sore after a while playing because of all of the unusual moves I was forced to. Furthermore, although it seems "realistic", it is really a solid disadvantage whe in Multy. Your opponent, with. Monitor around 24" has a perfect "cone of view", able to spot any threat better and faster than you because is right there on his peripheral view. He doesn t even get tired and no neck pain. I decided to downsize at 26" with jumping from 1080 to 1200 and never been happier. I also got a 2 ms response, better than 5 I had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hajimoto Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 (edited) There is not much more I can offer that Batwing has not already covered accept one thing. The 23" offers the most models available today at (56) followed by 24" (49) and then 27" (32). The market offers more product choices in 27" than anything between 25" and 32". I think this size will allow you a perfect fit for gaming and multimedia. It has always been my experience that you typically get a better unit price when there are more choices. The 27" is fast becoming the new 24" as its price is continually falling making it a reasonable purchase. So if your purchasing decision is more financial, the 23" would offer the most affordable options, but if it is a matter of size practicality and value, the 27" is the best choice. 23" example: ASUS VH236H Black 23" 2ms Full HD Widescreen LCD Monitor w/ Speakers 300 cd/m2 20000 :1 (ASCR) $159.99 after rebate 24" example: ViewSonic VA2448m-LED Black 24" Full HD LED Backlight LCD Monitor w/Speakers 300 cd/m2 DC 10,000,000:1 (1,000:1) $179.00 27" example: ViewSonic VA2702w Black 27" 1920x1080 3ms Full HD WideScreen LCD Monitor300 cd/m2 DC 60,000:1 (1,200:1) $269.00 I hope this helps Edited August 29, 2011 by Hajimoto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoScream~SPARTA~ Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 TV's don't have the response of a Monitor, never have and probably never will, that's why the two exist. There always is an optimum size for any person and any room, you have to decide. I like OLED after seeing it on a Samsung galaxy but their too expensive, look for one that gives you the best images in real life, goto the store & choose then buy it online or haggle with the store for a next to online price. Read reviews & try to see it in real life.... Good luck.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steel~Sparta~ Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 Also look for monitor with a fast refresh rate.... 60hz is typical but not great. 120hz is much better. 240hz is ideal. All of this is for LCD and LED monitors. LED is better than LCD. The screens are more vivid. I have considered Plasma. I know that years ago there was issues with "Burn In" but I think that has been resolved. Might be worth looking at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MH6~SPARTA~ Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 Also look for monitor with a fast refresh rate.... 60hz is typical but not great. 120hz is much better. 240hz is ideal. All of this is for LCD and LED monitors. LED is better than LCD. The screens are more vivid. I have considered Plasma. I know that years ago there was issues with "Burn In" but I think that has been resolved. Might be worth looking at. Matrix-LED is better than LCD, but edge-lit LED is just as worthless as regular LCD, it just consumes less power. So keep that in mind--just because it's an LED TV, doesn't mean its the good kind. I still consider plasma to have the best response time and best picture, especially when it comes to black levels. Matrix-LED setups are good too though, as they can turn areas of the screen off to get deeper blacks. Not as good as a plasma can (it can turn off individual pixels and get true black), but good enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steel~Sparta~ Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 Matrix-LED is better than LCD, but edge-lit LED is just as worthless as regular LCD, it just consumes less power. So keep that in mind--just because it's an LED TV, doesn't mean its the good kind. I still consider plasma to have the best response time and best picture, especially when it comes to black levels. Matrix-LED setups are good too though, as they can turn areas of the screen off to get deeper blacks. Not as good as a plasma can (it can turn off individual pixels and get true black), but good enough. I agree that plasma still has best response time and picture. Plasma operates at 600hz. Are there still issues with Burn in on the plasmas or have they fixed that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MH6~SPARTA~ Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 I agree that plasma still has best response time and picture. Plasma operates at 600hz. Are there still issues with Burn in on the plasmas or have they fixed that? They are a ton better now, but if you leave a still picture on the screen for weeks at a time you're going to get burn-in. There are counter-measures though, such as pixel-shifting, that the TV uses to fight burn-in. They also have programs to wash out the burn-in by essentially playing static and other noise, though the effectiveness of this depends on how long you let the plasma burn-in the image. Once it's permanent it's permanent. Most of the time, it's the aspect ratio bars that end up sitting on the screen for prolonged periods of time, i.e. someone watching 4:3 television on a widescreen television, so it adds two vertical sidebars. But even that is better these days because companies like Comcast make the bars silver instead of black, so the phosphors get about the same amount of wear as the rest of the television. Also most television logos (that sit at the bottom right) are now transparent or animated, to prevent burn-in. Games, however, do not usually accommodate plasma televisions (at least, not PC games). So if you leave your game paused with the plasma on, for days at a time, then that game will cause most likely cause burn-in. Also, any static UI elements for that game can cause burn-in, so if you do nothing but play that single game for months on end--don't watch TV on it, don't play anything else--you'll eventually start seeing ghost images of any static UI elements (i.e. the border around the healthbar, the minimap border, etc). But again, most burn-in is reversible, until it gets to a certain threshold. I think when it comes down to it, if you want the best black levels possible, go plasma. They take a little extra care but are worth it in my opinion. Aside from severe neglect, I doubt there's much you can do to ruin the picture permanently. If you want a decent picture without having to worry about burn-in though, go with a matrix-LED setup. If you want a great TV and want to pay out the nose for it, go OLED. And as for PC gaming, go with a PC monitor--unless you really just can't live without having a 47" gaming screen, in which case go with a TV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoScream~SPARTA~ Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 LCD Tv's have no phosphor, they use transistors with a colour pattern layer & backlight. There are no LED TV's only LED back light TV's, the industry marketing is misleading customers. All so called LED TV's are LCD with LED back light instead of Cold Cathode tubes. Plasma is great but they are (unlike LCD) based on plasma discharge and phosphor coated mesh (they have phosphor & can suffer burn in). I'm at work and can not write too much as my boss is on the roam.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skaz~SPARTA~ Posted August 30, 2011 Author Share Posted August 30, 2011 i think ill be getting a 27inch pc monitor, samsung has one that has 1 ms resp time. I might try that out. or maybe get a 2 ms led full hd screen. I have to think about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KalXen~SPARTA~ Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 I have a plasma HDTV, a DLP TV, and a LED TV. I wouldn't go Plasma, because they traditionally give off TONS of heat.. and with my computers in this room I'd be sweating bad. I moved my 42" Samsung LED in as my primary monitor, and I have had no refresh issues. I would agree on the "too immersive" concept, but not sure if that's good or bad.. Was playing LFD2 in realism mode at midnight with your pals in the dark. Have to keep looking around the screen for things.. And then when that hunter jumps on you when you are not expecting it and you scream like a little girl and wake up your family.. priceless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooster90 Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 i think ill be getting a 27inch pc monitor, samsung has one that has 1 ms resp time. I might try that out. or maybe get a 2 ms led full hd screen. I have to think about it. I'm assuming you're getting this one: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824001431 Just remember, response times aren't everything. If it's 3ms or below, you aren't really going to notice anything significant. It's about picture quality as well. People may give a lot of technical hoopla about LED backlights not being any more effective. But there's a reason it's popular. Every time I see a friend using one of their LED monitors, I have a wave of jealousy. Everything is always so much more vibrant and crisp. But I must admit, 300 for a 27" is a great price. May have to look into that monitor a bit more.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter~SPARTA~ Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 Just dont buy TN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoScream~SPARTA~ Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 I'm assuming you're getting this one: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824001431 Just remember, response times aren't everything. If it's 3ms or below, you aren't really going to notice anything significant. It's about picture quality as well. People may give a lot of technical hoopla about LED backlights not being any more effective. But there's a reason it's popular. Every time I see a friend using one of their LED monitors, I have a wave of jealousy. Everything is always so much more vibrant and crisp. But I must admit, 300 for a 27" is a great price. May have to look into that monitor a bit more.... Or it could be you got a shitty monitor and your friend has a less shitty monitor??? You didn't give any tech. reason for the LED backlight monitor of your friend being better except that it has the SHITTY LETTERS 'L.E.D.' on it. As the LED is only the light source for the LCD panel in front of your eyes, could it be that your LCD panel is the problem??? and nothing to do with the light output of the backlight in relation to SHARPNESS (CRISP) / VIBRANCY . LED panels make no difference to vibrance and crispness. They only affect the light and in that, how bright a screen it. Cold cathode the traditional tech. can output more light but it's not always the case as the panel in front of it blocks a percentage of the overall light when the panel is suppose to show white. http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/sharpness.php http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/ L.E.D. has these benefits. Lower heat (cooler running) Longer life More precise colour, less variation. Less likely to deteriorate over time. but The panel is the key to all other aspects, the twin switching planes of the IPS (range) of panels make the biggest vibrance / crispness differential in modern monitors/ screens. You pay money to get quality, on a budget, I'd avoid LED backlite panels as they carry a premium in the price of around $40-$50 and if your clever you'll know when a LED panel is the same price as a STD PANEL, it's because the LED panel had something else cut out.. to save cost. I paid $600 for my HP LP2475w (back in 2008) for a reason and it's not LED, but it is IPS http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/hp_lp2475w.htm What is IPS ? (the next best thing till OLED drops in price). Read and Learn http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPS_panel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooster90 Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 (edited) ^^ technical hoopla. All that matters is what you see. It's all subjective to each person's eyes. Yeah, my monitor is an old LCD and just about anything looks better. But his 24" Samsung LED looks particularly better than any other monitor I've seen recently. But I must say, this 19" Gateway LCD has served me well. Over 10 years old and no dead pixels. It was 800 dollars well spent back when all of this was fairly new. Man, I remember this was one of the biggest monitors in the store back then. XD 1680x1050 was an unheard of resolution. But, it's age is starting to show among newer, better technology. I'll likely be getting this monitor in the near future to play BF3 on. By far one of the best reviewed monitors in it's price range. Only downside is it's 24" instead of 27". http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236102 Edited August 31, 2011 by Rooster90 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoScream~SPARTA~ Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 Nice monitor that Rooster linked above, Skaz !!! you should look at it as a contented: Asus VE248H Price: very competitive. Brand: Very well known Warranty: excellent RTB swap out. 3years LED back light CONNECTORS: HDMI & DVI MOUNT: VESA Mount (wall) SOUND: Built in small speakers for sound (plus on a monitor) POWER: Low power 35w 1w stand by Only negatives: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZxJMJxWVFk Ghosting http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbxOK4VLXZQ&feature=related Ghosting fix http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYLjdo4o0Sc&NR=1 1. Power off monitor. 2. Hold down Menu Button + Power for 7 seconds. Then let off for a few seconds and hold down the Menu Button until you see the special/hidden blue menu on the far left of the monitor. 3. Use the normal up/down navigation keys to get to OD, then turn that off and exit the menu. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts